Scientists discover that pop music sounds all the same...

[Khor1255]

I disagree on almost all points. LIke them, love them or hate them, both are nothing more than pop artists that appealed to the masses. They aren't any different than the Beach Boys, the Beatles, Elvis, or any number of other highly successful artists over the years.

Well, we obviously won't agree here but the real difference is that the other artists you mentioned made it entirely by their own hands while Jacko and especially Madge were consumer products from beginning to end.

The Beatles weren't always "classic rock" and a lot of their early stuff was extremly POPPY. That doesn't make it bad, but it is a fact. They borrowed from those that came before them just like many artists have borrowed from them over the years.

The point isn't that pop itself is bad. When the common denominator is greatness, even pop is usually good. These days though....

Artists don't have to "grow" and "evolve" continually to be considered "real musicians/artists". Pop music appeals to a different crowd than other types of music. Don't like it? That's fine. I'm NOT a big defender of most pop music because I don't care for it, but the two highly successful acts that you mentioned will always be revered as among the best in the pop music realm and for good reason, NOT just because they embraced the potential of fame.

The big difference here is that Jacko and Madge are considered innovative usually for things related entirely to image or production and having almost nothing to do with actual innovations in music. I prefer pop musicians who are ... you know ... actually doing something interesting with their music.

I DO think that nearly anyone who gets into the music business on a national or worldwide level has a desire for fame and fortune. To say they don't is very naive. Some can handle the fame, others can't, but none of them are there because they don't want anyone to know them.

Sure. But when your entire drive is to sell records rather than create better music you tend to enter into least common denominator territory.

 

[Slip'nn2Darkness]

Well, you're right about Madonna. She has been the inspiration for so many that came after her. I just wish she'd settle down and retire, or at least do something a little more dignified than grab her crotch onstage and cause controversy.

Then it wouldn't be Madonna now would it? I think right now she is re-inventing herself to go out with a bang. She pulls this edge thing several times in the past to help record sells. Plus it's her way of saying to those who "bitch" all the time.. This is what you can do with all that..
Madonna is a prime example of the power of a well thought out plan. I commend her for it and as far as coming across and aging dignified.. Shut the front door.. She never was a nun and never will act like one..

 

[AboutAGirl]

I disagree on almost all points. LIke them, love them or hate them, both are nothing more than pop artists that appealed to the masses. They aren't any different than the Beach Boys, the Beatles, Elvis, or any number of other highly successful artists over the years.

The Beatles weren't always "classic rock" and a lot of their early stuff was extremly POPPY. That doesn't make it bad, but it is a fact. They borrowed from those that came before them just like many artists have borrowed from them over the years.

Artists don't have to "grow" and "evolve" continually to be considered "real musicians/artists". Pop music appeals to a different crowd than other types of music. Don't like it? That's fine. I'm NOT a big defender of most pop music because I don't care for it, but the two highly successful acts that you mentioned will always be revered as among the best in the pop music realm and for good reason, NOT just because they embraced the potential of fame.


I DO think that nearly anyone who gets into the music business on a national or worldwide level has a desire for fame and fortune. To say they don't is very naive. Some can handle the fame, others can't, but none of them are there because they don't want anyone to know them.

Agreed 10,000%! Even when it comes down to the Varg Vikerneses and Godspeed You! Black Emperors of the world, if they really didn't care about popularity they would play their music for themselves in their room and leave labels, promotion, and mass-production out of the equation. Feigning apathy towards fame is itself a highly lucrative business tactic. >.<

 

[oscar gamble]

The Beatles weren't always "classic rock" and a lot of their early stuff was extremly POPPY.

As if a lot of their later stuff wasn't.

 

[oscar gamble]

Well, we obviously won't agree here but the real difference is that the other artists you mentioned made it entirely by their own hands while Jacko and especially Madge were consumer products from beginning to end.

The point isn't that pop itself is bad. When the common denominator is greatness, even pop is usually good. These days though....

These days? You do realize that Michael Jackson first charted in 1969, correct? Even Madonna has been around for almost 30 years.

 

[Eoin Koenig]

This was inevitable. People will eventually tire of it (like they did with Indie music in the UK) and move on to something new and different. :sigh:

 

[Eoin Koenig]

My thoughts exactly.

Actually, considering that Crazy Horse, Nirvana, and Tom Petty are my favorite bands, I'd say I prefer the same three chords over and over again.

Too true.

 

[Khor1255]

These days? You do realize that Michael Jackson first charted in 1969, correct? Even Madonna has been around for almost 30 years.

Yes. And The Jackson 5 actually wasn't that bad.

But Jacko and Madge were on the vanguard of the bildge that eventually entirely consumed the popular music scene. It took a couple decades for it to completely bottom out. I'm hoping it is gonna be all uphill from here but have a bad feeling it isn't.

 

[Tek_54]

Not all the Pop music is bad, boring, repetitive, ans no imaginative.

Ne new pop music is more than very samed one to each oter songs, or artist

 

[Khor1255]

Even among new pop it isn't a total wasteland...yet. My point is that as long as mediocraty is given the same respect as excellence it isn't likely to get better. You don't have to like it just because it's what everyone is listening to. If you do like it, that's great and I actually envy you. But to pretend most of it is of similar quality to what came in previous decades is ignoring the facts.

Simply comparing the top 40 of the 70s with what it is today bears that out more than any words can express. Try it.